9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. In our view, the denovo adjudication order is nothing but a rehash of the earlier one which was set aside by the Tribunal - Without any further cogent or reasoned discussion thereafter, the adjudicating authority has proceeded to confirm the very same amount of ₹ 15,88,954/- on the appellant without any justification. When the Tribunal had vacated the penalty and which decision became final since not appealed by the Revenue, we are at a loss to fathom how and why the Commissioner in his denovo proceedings has once against foisted even a higher quantum of penalty under different provisions. Not only that, he has also sought to demand interest which was not demanded in the earlier adjudication order. The adjudicating authority ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to M/s.Neyveli Lignite Corporation and handed over on behalf of M/s.JS. iii. The delivery challans are prepared by M/s.JS in quadruplicate and three copies are given to M/s.Neyveli Lignite Corporation along with castings and fourth copy after acknowledgement by M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation is returned to M/s.JS along with machining bills of job worker. iv. The job charges are inclusive of lorry freight from the job workers factory to M/s.Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Neyveli. v. The waste generated form castings is not returned to M/s.JS but only disposed by them. vi. They are directed by M/s.JS to make entries to the effect that the waste have been returned and hence they made wrong entries in the 57F(3) challan. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitation is invocable and imposed equal amount of penalty of ₹ 15,88,954/- under Rule 9(2), 173Q and 226 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 r/w section 38A of Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority also demanded interest at the appropriate rates. Aggrieved the appellants are once again in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. On 4.1.2018, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant ld. counsel Shri J. Shankar Raman adverted to the remand order of the Tribunal dated 20.9.2007 to contend that the Tribunal had vacated the entire penalty imposed under section 11AC for a period prior to 28.9.1996 and had observed that demand is by and large based on the private records recovered from the supervisor of the factory a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw our attention to para 30 of the impugned order where the adjudicating authority has noted that discrepancies had not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee and that they have only made generalized explanation that whatever is cleared from their factory and the job workers have ultimately suffered duty and therefore their action is reduced to an issue of only belated payment of duty. Ld. AR submits that non-payment of duty at the time of clearance of castings is not merely a procedural lapse but it is a substantial non-compliance of the statutory requirements under Central Excise law. During personal hearing also the appellant did not adduce any evidence or document relied in the earlier proceedings which had resulted in confirmati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty imposed on M/s. JS under section 11AC for the reason that the said provisions of law was not in force during the period of dispute. The Tribunal also sustained demands of duty amounting to ₹ 1,32,041/- and ₹ 15,404/- conceded by the appellant. However, in respect of the remaining portion of the demand and only in respect of that amount, the Tribunal put forth the following clear directions:- 6. Reverting to the surviving challenge against a major part of the demand of duty, we note that this demand is, by and large, based on private records recovered from the supervisor of the factory and the labour contractor of M/s.JS. Nowhere in the impugned order is there any discussion on the relevant particulars on the basis of whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fy himself whether there was cogent findings based on irresistible evidence concerning the allegation that the assessee had clandestinely manufactured and removed excisable goods. We are unable to find any attempt in this direction in the entire impugned order. In our view, the denovo adjudication order is nothing but a rehash of the earlier one which was set aside by the Tribunal. No independent analysis on the lines directed by the Tribunal has been done. Notwithstanding to the Tribunal s adverse observations concerning the major reliance of department on entries found in the documents recovered from the factory and other premises, the adjudicating authority in the impugned order, in para 32 has gone ahead and once again placed reliance o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
